52 Wolves in First Day

Wolf, Coyote, Fox, Cats, Callings, Behaviors, Hunting Stories, Pictures, Tactics, Q&A.
VilasCo
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 11:11 am
Status: Online

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby VilasCo » Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:27 am

john1984 wrote:And what about the Snowshoe Hare ???? People said years ago they used to be all over the northwoods. But as the wolf population increased the Hare population declined. Now we have no more white rabbits to chase cuz of the wolves :cry:


I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim wolves have been the source of hare decline. I went tracking snowshoe hares one day this winter and trailed 13 hare, 12 of those hare had either a coyote or fox after them before I was able to catch up to them. The 13th hare ended up in my game bag. An interesting observation I made this winter during my bobcat hunt is that the cat I tracked for 12 days never once took out a snowshoe. It did eat a raccoon, a couple squirrels, some mice, and a grouse. That cat got the best of me this January. Bottom line, there are a lot of predators up here and hares have a tough life.


VilasCo
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 11:11 am
Status: Online

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby VilasCo » Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:36 am

[quote="ThePreBanMan"]If they truly are in the numbers that some are stating (same as coyote) then I have no issue with the hunts and management. My objections are based on the understanding that the wolves are NOT near the prevalence of coyotes. If they truly are both prevalent and a problem, then sure, like all species living in proximity to humans, management makes sense. However, the information I have read seems to indicate they are not prevalent and are still few in number. The state's low target for the total species suggests a desire to keep them there as well... If there were only 350 deer in the state everyone would be screaming about it being a crisis, despite the prevalence of the species in other states...

If you are ever in Vilas County I would be happy to take you out and we will do a track count. If you are not convinced, beer and burgers are on me.
Bowhunting Brian
500 Club
Posts: 3711
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:13 am
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby Bowhunting Brian » Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:44 am

ThePreBanMan wrote:
Dewey wrote:I think if you lived in wolf country you might have a totally different viewpoint. This might give you some insight to why wolves have become such a problem in WI.

https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/Wildlif ... /maps.html

If you read those yearly depredation reports you will see we obviously have big problems here that needed to be addressed. You say our target population is in the low 100’s. That’s laughable because we passed that target DECADES ago. Seems we are easily able to justify a wolf season after all. It’s a science based approach unless of course you don’t believe in such a thing.

It’s nothing political on Trumps part. Actually it’s false that he removed them from protected status AFTER he lost the election. This was passed in October before the election so no dirty politics like you said. Some may say he did it for votes. You can believe what you want on that but this hunt has been on the back burner for a lot of years. Even CNN agrees with the date when this was passed then not surprisingly they turned it political at the end of the article.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/29/politics ... index.html

If you researched it you would see that the first wolf seasons we had actually happened smack dab in the middle of Obama’s terms in office 2012-2014 but then the anti’s got it shut down again till now. Was it dirty politics when the hunt was passed during the Obama Administration? :think:


Looks like you're right on the date he removed it. My mistake, by less than a week. I don't know how you could have had a hunt lined up during Obama's term. They were still a protected species. They had been listed for 45 years prior. That seems odd and it makes sense it didn't happen as it would seem to violate Federal law.

It does look like they've killed a couple of cattle and a couple of pets over the last year, and a horse. I'm still yet to be convinced that required an assault on the species that are dancing with extinction. As for the target population number for the state, I'm basing it off of an ABC report which lists it as 350 state-wide...

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory ... s-76115840

...and a local news station in the state which also reports the state's target as 350..

https://www.local10.com/news/national/2 ... 0-animals/

...not exactly a huge population...


You don't live here and have no idea what the people in would country live with.
Bowhunting Brian
500 Club
Posts: 3711
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:13 am
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby Bowhunting Brian » Mon Mar 01, 2021 10:50 am

ThePreBanMan wrote:If they truly are in the numbers that some are stating (same as coyote) then I have no issue with the hunts and management. My objections are based on the understanding that the wolves are NOT near the prevalence of coyotes. If they truly are both prevalent and a problem, then sure, like all species living in proximity to humans, management makes sense. However, the information I have read seems to indicate they are not prevalent and are still few in number. The state's low target for the total species suggests a desire to keep them there as well... If there were only 350 deer in the state everyone would be screaming about it being a crisis, despite the prevalence of the species in other states...

Bowhuntercoop wrote:I wouldn’t be sad if they were extinct and I don’t even live in wolf country. Just seeing what they do to the elk and deer population is enough for me. They serve no purpose just like coyotes. Kill em all.



I think that's a really unfortunate opinion that makes me sad to hear. Wolves have a POSITIVE impact on the ecosystem at large, helping to keep the very species you cite at healthy levels. Mother nature is perfect in her design... It's only when humans come along and try to manage that things get effed...

Here is an example of how the wolves saved other species in Yellowstone.
https://youtu.be/Ql3rY-XyQ3k


I don't get why you're even commenting on a thread that is about Wisconsin when your out east and this doesn't affect you what so ever? Also from you're comments, you're very uninformed on our wolf problem here.
User avatar
Tim H
500 Club
Posts: 2489
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:37 am
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/nomadicbeastwi
Location: Wisconsin
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby Tim H » Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:15 pm

Bowhunting Brian wrote:
ThePreBanMan wrote:If they truly are in the numbers that some are stating (same as coyote) then I have no issue with the hunts and management. My objections are based on the understanding that the wolves are NOT near the prevalence of coyotes. If they truly are both prevalent and a problem, then sure, like all species living in proximity to humans, management makes sense. However, the information I have read seems to indicate they are not prevalent and are still few in number. The state's low target for the total species suggests a desire to keep them there as well... If there were only 350 deer in the state everyone would be screaming about it being a crisis, despite the prevalence of the species in other states...

Bowhuntercoop wrote:I wouldn’t be sad if they were extinct and I don’t even live in wolf country. Just seeing what they do to the elk and deer population is enough for me. They serve no purpose just like coyotes. Kill em all.



I think that's a really unfortunate opinion that makes me sad to hear. Wolves have a POSITIVE impact on the ecosystem at large, helping to keep the very species you cite at healthy levels. Mother nature is perfect in her design... It's only when humans come along and try to manage that things get effed...

Here is an example of how the wolves saved other species in Yellowstone.
https://youtu.be/Ql3rY-XyQ3k


I don't get why you're even commenting on a thread that is about Wisconsin when your out east and this doesn't affect you what so ever? Also from you're comments, you're very uninformed on our wolf problem here.


I am also thinking the same. I wouldn't begin to have an opinion on the management of the gator situation in Florida or the hog situation in Texas. I don't live in those areas, so I have no first hand experience on it. Even reading some articles and watching a documentary on YouTube, I still wouldn't be confident in giving management advice.
User avatar
greenhorndave
500 Club
Posts: 9430
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:23 am
Location: SE WI
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby greenhorndave » Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:19 pm

Bring them to Massachusetts or New Hampshire and see how the deer herd does.

The simple fact is that it takes a LOT more food to feed a wolf that is 3X the size of a coyote. So the comparison is flawed.
——-
Let’s go Brandon!
User avatar
greenhorndave
500 Club
Posts: 9430
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:23 am
Location: SE WI
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby greenhorndave » Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:21 pm

greenhorndave wrote:Bring them to Massachusetts or New Hampshire and see how the deer herd does.

The simple fact is that it takes a LOT more food to feed a wolf that is 3X the size of a coyote. So the comparison is flawed.


Wisconsin also is not Yellowstone. While there are many remote areas, there isn't the same vast quantities of unbroken land. The farmers and ranchers on the periphery of Yellowstone aren't big fans, I can assure you that.
——-
Let’s go Brandon!
Bowhunting Brian
500 Club
Posts: 3711
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:13 am
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby Bowhunting Brian » Tue Mar 02, 2021 6:12 am

greenhorndave wrote:Bring them to Massachusetts or New Hampshire and see how the deer herd does.

The simple fact is that it takes a LOT more food to feed a wolf that is 3X the size of a coyote. So the comparison is flawed.

Wolves also thrill kill. Lots goes to waste.
User avatar
ThePreBanMan
500 Club
Posts: 2148
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:36 pm
Location: Fairhaven, MA
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby ThePreBanMan » Tue Mar 02, 2021 12:06 pm

Bowhunting Brian wrote:
ThePreBanMan wrote:If they truly are in the numbers that some are stating (same as coyote) then I have no issue with the hunts and management. My objections are based on the understanding that the wolves are NOT near the prevalence of coyotes. If they truly are both prevalent and a problem, then sure, like all species living in proximity to humans, management makes sense. However, the information I have read seems to indicate they are not prevalent and are still few in number. The state's low target for the total species suggests a desire to keep them there as well... If there were only 350 deer in the state everyone would be screaming about it being a crisis, despite the prevalence of the species in other states...

Bowhuntercoop wrote:I wouldn’t be sad if they were extinct and I don’t even live in wolf country. Just seeing what they do to the elk and deer population is enough for me. They serve no purpose just like coyotes. Kill em all.



I think that's a really unfortunate opinion that makes me sad to hear. Wolves have a POSITIVE impact on the ecosystem at large, helping to keep the very species you cite at healthy levels. Mother nature is perfect in her design... It's only when humans come along and try to manage that things get effed...

Here is an example of how the wolves saved other species in Yellowstone.
https://youtu.be/Ql3rY-XyQ3k


I don't get why you're even commenting on a thread that is about Wisconsin when your out east and this doesn't affect you what so ever? Also from you're comments, you're very uninformed on our wolf problem here.


Because the eradication of a species impacts everyone, not just those doing the hunting, and not just those within the border of a state. I would be included in the term "everyone".
User avatar
ThePreBanMan
500 Club
Posts: 2148
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:36 pm
Location: Fairhaven, MA
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby ThePreBanMan » Tue Mar 02, 2021 12:09 pm

greenhorndave wrote:Bring them to Massachusetts or New Hampshire and see how the deer herd does.

The simple fact is that it takes a LOT more food to feed a wolf that is 3X the size of a coyote. So the comparison is flawed.


Northern NH, maybe they could make it... But they wouldn't make it in Southern NH or really any part of MA outside of the maybe NY border area... Even that's a stretch. We're just too densely populated and not enough habitat remains for them.
User avatar
ThePreBanMan
500 Club
Posts: 2148
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:36 pm
Location: Fairhaven, MA
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby ThePreBanMan » Tue Mar 02, 2021 12:17 pm

stash59 wrote:
Dewey wrote:
ThePreBanMan wrote:If they truly are in the numbers that some are stating (same as coyote) then I have no issue with the hunts and management. My objections are based on the understanding that the wolves are NOT near the prevalence of coyotes. If they truly are both prevalent and a problem, then sure, like all species living in proximity to humans, management makes sense. However, the information I have read seems to indicate they are not prevalent and are still few in number. The state's low target for the total species suggests a desire to keep them there as well... If there were only 350 deer in the state everyone would be screaming about it being a crisis, despite the prevalence of the species in other states...

Bowhuntercoop wrote:I wouldn’t be sad if they were extinct and I don’t even live in wolf country. Just seeing what they do to the elk and deer population is enough for me. They serve no purpose just like coyotes. Kill em all.



I think that's a really unfortunate opinion that makes me sad to hear. Wolves have a POSITIVE impact on the ecosystem at large, helping to keep the very species you cite at healthy levels. Mother nature is perfect in her design... It's only when humans come along and try to manage that things get effed...

Here is an example of how the wolves saved other species in Yellowstone.
https://youtu.be/Ql3rY-XyQ3k

Do you have any actual firsthand experience with wolves or are you just going by what you read on the internet or watch on YouTube? :think:

Comparing wolves in WI to the Yellowstone ecosystem is completely laughable.

You seem to be just going off your own personal opinions with no real world experience. I find it crazy that you come here as a MA resident with no knowledge whatsoever of what we’re dealing with here in WI and basically tell us that we’re doing it all wrong by legally managing wolves. Having no clue about what happens in your state I could never tell anyone how to manage wildlife there. Just out of my realm of knowledge so I would have no opinion.

I provided nothing but facts above in my prior post. Not sure how anybody can argue that we don’t have a real problem here. Good to hear your finally swinging in favor of having a hunt.

Believe it or not the real world isn’t a Disney movie where all animals live in complete harmony. When there are huge predation problems on livestock like shown obviously there needs to be some kind of balance. Try telling these farmers in historically wolf free areas that there isn’t a problem. Very few want the wolves completely eliminated. We just want an even predator/prey balance that’s healthy for our state and not based off personal feelings by others who only go off emotion.


That video is just another liberal propaganda film. Not denying the elk numbers in Yellowstone Park were too high. And a few other forms of wildlife benefited from the wolves being there again. But you heard no mention about the Shiras moose population from that area. In that "educational" film. Yellowstone used to be one of their strongholds. Shiras moose are all but gone now. In the entire greater Yellowstone area. Not just inside the Park. Believe it or not. Moose are an easier prey for wolves. Unlike elk are typically loners or hang in small groups consisting of a cow and it's calves. And never existed in numbers even close to elk. I agree that some stream damage was done because of higher elk numbers. But claiming that, that had a major influence on the quality of the city of Billings drinking water is hilarious. And I never heard about it being a major threat to the fish either. The quality of the fishing never had any complaints. Like I said propaganda. In care of the liberal bunny huggers. Which is crazy cause wolves really like to eat bunnies!!!!!



According to the national park service, the moose were in decline well before wolves were reintroduced.. The wolves have nothing to do with it... In fact also according to the NPS, the number has been about 200 since 1996... which was after wolves were reintroduced... They've literally had no impact...

https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/moose.htm

As for claims about erosion, water quality, etc... I'm reading and citing what the biologists have concluded through their studies.. I'
ll be happy to read any peer-reviewed and accredited scientific study you can cite to the contrary...
User avatar
stash59
Moderator
Posts: 9532
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 8:22 am
Location: S Central Wi.
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby stash59 » Tue Mar 02, 2021 1:39 pm

ThePreBanMan wrote:
stash59 wrote:
Dewey wrote:
ThePreBanMan wrote:If they truly are in the numbers that some are stating (same as coyote) then I have no issue with the hunts and management. My objections are based on the understanding that the wolves are NOT near the prevalence of coyotes. If they truly are both prevalent and a problem, then sure, like all species living in proximity to humans, management makes sense. However, the information I have read seems to indicate they are not prevalent and are still few in number. The state's low target for the total species suggests a desire to keep them there as well... If there were only 350 deer in the state everyone would be screaming about it being a crisis, despite the prevalence of the species in other states...

Bowhuntercoop wrote:I wouldn’t be sad if they were extinct and I don’t even live in wolf country. Just seeing what they do to the elk and deer population is enough for me. They serve no purpose just like coyotes. Kill em all.



I think that's a really unfortunate opinion that makes me sad to hear. Wolves have a POSITIVE impact on the ecosystem at large, helping to keep the very species you cite at healthy levels. Mother nature is perfect in her design... It's only when humans come along and try to manage that things get effed...

Here is an example of how the wolves saved other species in Yellowstone.
https://youtu.be/Ql3rY-XyQ3k

Do you have any actual firsthand experience with wolves or are you just going by what you read on the internet or watch on YouTube? :think:

Comparing wolves in WI to the Yellowstone ecosystem is completely laughable.

You seem to be just going off your own personal opinions with no real world experience. I find it crazy that you come here as a MA resident with no knowledge whatsoever of what we’re dealing with here in WI and basically tell us that we’re doing it all wrong by legally managing wolves. Having no clue about what happens in your state I could never tell anyone how to manage wildlife there. Just out of my realm of knowledge so I would have no opinion.

I provided nothing but facts above in my prior post. Not sure how anybody can argue that we don’t have a real problem here. Good to hear your finally swinging in favor of having a hunt.

Believe it or not the real world isn’t a Disney movie where all animals live in complete harmony. When there are huge predation problems on livestock like shown obviously there needs to be some kind of balance. Try telling these farmers in historically wolf free areas that there isn’t a problem. Very few want the wolves completely eliminated. We just want an even predator/prey balance that’s healthy for our state and not based off personal feelings by others who only go off emotion.


That video is just another liberal propaganda film. Not denying the elk numbers in Yellowstone Park were too high. And a few other forms of wildlife benefited from the wolves being there again. But you heard no mention about the Shiras moose population from that area. In that "educational" film. Yellowstone used to be one of their strongholds. Shiras moose are all but gone now. In the entire greater Yellowstone area. Not just inside the Park. Believe it or not. Moose are an easier prey for wolves. Unlike elk are typically loners or hang in small groups consisting of a cow and it's calves. And never existed in numbers even close to elk. I agree that some stream damage was done because of higher elk numbers. But claiming that, that had a major influence on the quality of the city of Billings drinking water is hilarious. And I never heard about it being a major threat to the fish either. The quality of the fishing never had any complaints. Like I said propaganda. In care of the liberal bunny huggers. Which is crazy cause wolves really like to eat bunnies!!!!!



According to the national park service, the moose were in decline well before wolves were reintroduced.. The wolves have nothing to do with it... In fact also according to the NPS, the number has been about 200 since 1996... which was after wolves were reintroduced... They've literally had no impact...

https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/moose.htm

As for claims about erosion, water quality, etc... I'm reading and citing what the biologists have concluded through their studies.. I'
ll be happy to read any peer-reviewed and accredited scientific study you can cite to the contrary...


Yeah and I believe everything Joe Biden is saying too. Of course they're gonna say moose were on the decline before wolf introduction. You really think they're gonna cop to something like that. I know guys that hunted moose outside the park in units that bordered it. Moose sightings dropped drastically within 4-5 years after the wolf introductions. But I'm sure that was just a coincedence. The NPS and the USF&W service haven't got any agendas to push. RIGHT!!! They lied at the original meetings held with the locals in the Greater Yellowstone area. And are still lieing to them. That's wrong. And I'm a guy that feels wolves have their place. But why should Wisconsinites have to put up with over 5 times the number of wolves originally agreed upon by everyone. Just to appease a bunch of misinformed easterners. Besides wolves are no where near the extinction level. When you look at them globally.

I know I'm no scientist. But I know what severe erosion looks like. And I never saw it on my visits to Yellowstone.
Happiness is a large gutpile!!!!!!!
User avatar
ThePreBanMan
500 Club
Posts: 2148
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:36 pm
Location: Fairhaven, MA
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby ThePreBanMan » Tue Mar 02, 2021 2:04 pm

stash59 wrote:Yeah and I believe everything Joe Biden is saying too. Of course they're gonna say moose were on the decline before wolf introduction. You really think they're gonna cop to something like that. I know guys that hunted moose outside the park in units that bordered it. Moose sightings dropped drastically within 4-5 years after the wolf introductions. But I'm sure that was just a coincedence. The NPS and the USF&W service haven't got any agendas to push. RIGHT!!! They lied at the original meetings held with the locals in the Greater Yellowstone area. And are still lieing to them. That's wrong. And I'm a guy that feels wolves have their place. But why should Wisconsinites have to put up with over 5 times the number of wolves originally agreed upon by everyone. Just to appease a bunch of misinformed easterners. Besides wolves are no where near the extinction level. When you look at them globally.

I know I'm no scientist. But I know what severe erosion looks like. And I never saw it on my visits to Yellowstone.



Okay, now you're accusing scientists of willingly deceiving people. If you're going to make statements like that then you need facts and evidence to back it up. Those same scientists use tools like aerial surveys with FLIR equipment to measure populations... I'm not sure "moose sighting" by hunters rises to the same standard of accuracy when it comes to measurements of a population. They could just be lousy hunters... Or the animals could have moved to land they don't have access to or any other number of factors.

If you've got hard evidence they're lying... Then let's see it... Otherwise, I would suggest sticking to the actual measurable and verifiable facts when making your point. Calling anyone a liar, and offering zero evidence to support the accusation is not a good look man....
Bowhunting Brian
500 Club
Posts: 3711
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:13 am
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby Bowhunting Brian » Tue Mar 02, 2021 2:12 pm

ThePreBanMan wrote:
Bowhunting Brian wrote:
ThePreBanMan wrote:If they truly are in the numbers that some are stating (same as coyote) then I have no issue with the hunts and management. My objections are based on the understanding that the wolves are NOT near the prevalence of coyotes. If they truly are both prevalent and a problem, then sure, like all species living in proximity to humans, management makes sense. However, the information I have read seems to indicate they are not prevalent and are still few in number. The state's low target for the total species suggests a desire to keep them there as well... If there were only 350 deer in the state everyone would be screaming about it being a crisis, despite the prevalence of the species in other states...

Bowhuntercoop wrote:I wouldn’t be sad if they were extinct and I don’t even live in wolf country. Just seeing what they do to the elk and deer population is enough for me. They serve no purpose just like coyotes. Kill em all.



I think that's a really unfortunate opinion that makes me sad to hear. Wolves have a POSITIVE impact on the ecosystem at large, helping to keep the very species you cite at healthy levels. Mother nature is perfect in her design... It's only when humans come along and try to manage that things get effed...

Here is an example of how the wolves saved other species in Yellowstone.
https://youtu.be/Ql3rY-XyQ3k


I don't get why you're even commenting on a thread that is about Wisconsin when your out east and this doesn't affect you what so ever? Also from you're comments, you're very uninformed on our wolf problem here.


Because the eradication of a species impacts everyone, not just those doing the hunting, and not just those within the border of a state. I would be included in the term "everyone".

No eradication. Just a few killed to control the population. Even though you're a liberal, I thought since you're a hunter, you'd understand why we had this hunt.
User avatar
Jackson Marsh
Moderator
Posts: 17360
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:11 am
Location: SE WI
Status: Offline

Re: 52 Wolves in First Day

Unread postby Jackson Marsh » Tue Mar 02, 2021 2:32 pm

ThePreBanMan wrote:
stash59 wrote:Yeah and I believe everything Joe Biden is saying too. Of course they're gonna say moose were on the decline before wolf introduction. You really think they're gonna cop to something like that. I know guys that hunted moose outside the park in units that bordered it. Moose sightings dropped drastically within 4-5 years after the wolf introductions. But I'm sure that was just a coincedence. The NPS and the USF&W service haven't got any agendas to push. RIGHT!!! They lied at the original meetings held with the locals in the Greater Yellowstone area. And are still lieing to them. That's wrong. And I'm a guy that feels wolves have their place. But why should Wisconsinites have to put up with over 5 times the number of wolves originally agreed upon by everyone. Just to appease a bunch of misinformed easterners. Besides wolves are no where near the extinction level. When you look at them globally.

I know I'm no scientist. But I know what severe erosion looks like. And I never saw it on my visits to Yellowstone.



Okay, now you're accusing scientists of willingly deceiving people. If you're going to make statements like that then you need facts and evidence to back it up. Those same scientists use tools like aerial surveys with FLIR equipment to measure populations... I'm not sure "moose sighting" by hunters rises to the same standard of accuracy when it comes to measurements of a population. They could just be lousy hunters... Or the animals could have moved to land they don't have access to or any other number of factors.

If you've got hard evidence they're lying... Then let's see it... Otherwise, I would suggest sticking to the actual measurable and verifiable facts when making your point. Calling anyone a liar, and offering zero evidence to support the accusation is not a good look man....



I would be careful to not worship at the altar of science, it would appear it would be just as accurate to flip a coin.


https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2150 ... statistics


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5579390/


https://www.castoredc.com/blog/replicat ... -research/



https://slate.com/technology/2016/04/bi ... ology.html



https://ecrcommunity.plos.org/2019/11/1 ... ty-crisis/


  • Advertisement

Return to “Predator Hunting”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests